Why Ukraine’s attacks on Russian oil may be the final straw | George Barros

(LONDON) – Ukraine’s escalating campaign against Russian oil infrastructure could inflict significant long term damage on the Kremlin’s war effort, according to George Barros of the Institute for the Study of War.

Speaking on Times Radio’s Frontline programme, Barros said global oil price fluctuations have recently benefited Russia, but warned that Ukrainian strikes targeting production and logistics are steadily eroding that advantage.

“The prices of international oil went up a lot which helped the Russians. The Ukrainians are simultaneously degrading the capability to an extent which is difficult to quantify exactly,” he said. “So it is sort of like big plus big plus big minus.”

Barros added that over time, oil prices are likely to stabilise while Ukrainian attacks intensify, creating cumulative pressure on Russia’s revenue streams. “All things in the long run, oil should normalise. The Ukrainian efforts to degrade the Russian oil capability will intensify. So this should cause some damage here.”

His assessment comes as Ukraine maintains a relatively stable front line, despite being outnumbered. Ukrainian forces have expanded their operational reach, particularly through drone warfare, increasing what analysts describe as a “kill zone” from a few kilometres to potentially over 20 kilometres.

This expanded zone has forced Russian troops to abandon large scale mechanised assaults in favour of small infiltration units, reducing their effectiveness and increasing operational strain.

Barros said Russian offensive operations launched in March have delivered limited results. While some minor territorial gains have been recorded, there is little indication of any operational breakthrough. He described the campaign as “underwhelming”, noting that Russian casualties remain disproportionately high relative to gains.

Ukrainian counterattacks earlier in the year also disrupted Russian preparations, forcing commanders to redeploy units and weakening the coherence of planned offensives.

Four years into the full scale invasion, Barros assessed that Russia has failed to achieve its strategic and operational objectives. Despite limited territorial advances, he said the overall outcome has left Russia significantly weakened.

He also highlighted the growing effectiveness of Ukrainian strikes deep inside Russian territory, particularly against oil facilities and supply chains. These operations exploit Russia’s vast geographic size, which makes comprehensive air defence coverage difficult.

“Because the attack surface area is so wide, it is very hard to defend all of the infrastructure,” he said.

The economic impact of these strikes is complicated by global market dynamics. Recent disruptions in the Middle East have driven up oil prices, temporarily boosting Russian revenues. According to estimates cited by Barros, Russia may be earning an additional 150 million US dollars per day due to elevated prices.

However, Ukraine’s continued targeting of export terminals, including Baltic ports and Black Sea facilities, is expected to offset these gains over time.

Barros also pointed to signs of strain within Russia’s domestic defence posture. Private companies and state firms are increasingly being required to fund their own anti drone systems, while reservists are being mobilised in smaller increments to protect critical infrastructure.

He said this reflects the Kremlin’s limited capacity to defend all key assets simultaneously.

Looking ahead, Barros suggested that Russia is likely to continue gradual mobilisation efforts rather than large scale conscription, while Ukraine will further develop its long range strike capabilities.

Despite ongoing diplomatic discussions, he said the prospects for a negotiated settlement remain low, with both sides maintaining fundamentally incompatible positions.